Science is a big part of modern civilization, whether
anyone likes it or not. Without it there would have never been some great human
accomplishments. I would like to talk about it because I think it is very
important. In order to do so we must clearly define it. My definition of
it is the combination of more than one natural objects that are used
to either further human understanding or to change the environment.
People claim that this can help the world step out of some
of its miseries, such as the ever pressing problem of unclean energy. There is
a common idea floating around that we can keep our present lifestyle intact as
long as we use new technologies for the limited resources we have. Some of
these being oil, coal and fossil fuel. The most famous "new
stuff" is wind and solar power.
I am going to make some
guesses on the topic. With these in mind you might want to consider losing all
hope of abstract technology saving the day.
I would like you to
note then when I call these the ten "grand" assumptions I do not
mean it in a fixed sense. This article is constantly getting updated and it is
very likely that it will become the 11 "grand" assumptions or perhaps
one of them will get dropped. It is just an outlook on the world and it
must have a thousand flaws, I can understand that. Regardless it still is very
useful to those that agree.
Assumption one is That
the government and corporations will never stop their endless destruction
of the earth until every last bit of natural resources has been consumed. How many bankers
or politicians have changed their ways for good after people sent
them waves of love? What about when people asked them kindly? As far
as I am concerned none have done so. That is not what is relevant; we need to
look at why they stay the same no matter what. The answer is simple; they are
too ingrained in themselves and in civilization. By the time you work your
way up to the rank of CEO there is no turning back. You must to limit your
creativity by fitting into the job requirements. The same goes for every way of
living inside the civilized world. It is by no means
a coincidence that this happened; after all it is the nature of this
machine we call home. There is not really a way for the corporations or
the government to go through voluntary change and they are necessities for
changing the system from within. This means that if these so called sustainable
things replaced the present technologies these two powers would make
them unsustainable. For it is the nature of this civilization to consume
without giving back and as long as it is intact things will stay that
way.
Assumption two is that
it is not a good idea to maintain our way of living even if we could
create a sustainable culture. Let’s say we find new technologies that allow
us keep our way of life and mind sets. Then we need to ask is whether
or not we should do so. Look at your lifestyle from a neutral
perspective and see. From birth you must meet this mad worlds demands,
which include school, work, television, junk food, housing, shopping
and association with the very system that is destroying the planet. I say
it is not worth it to continue on our present path even if the
environment is left unharmed. Regardless of what our civilization is
built on, be it solar or oil, it will continue to suppress and
control humanity via any means necessary.
Assumption
three is that there is no longer enough time to put all the necessary
tools into place for some technological paradise. Do you think we have enough time
to replace all the things that are harmful to the environment before
civilization falls? We know for a fact that this resource based economy
will fall apart and bring with it millions of lives. At this point in
time we cannot expect a shift from unsustainable things to
sustainable stuff to happen overnight. By the time civ falls what do
you think will be left of the planet earth? Not a lot, already most of the fish
in the sea are gone, half of the oil is gone and maybe worse of all most of our
originality is gone. Ask yourself what kind of world you want to be left over
after your death. You might want to ask yourself if there is going to be any
world in the next few years. We need to destroy the bad parts of the world
before there is no more nature left to defend.
Assumption four is
that the amount of time we are putting into the destruction of the earth
outweighs that of what we are putting into science. This is true in every sense; the
government starts wars, does a horrible job maintaining this land base and
indoctrinates humanity. Corporations are no better; they are very
literally destroying the earth. This civilization is based on destruction. The
majority of public effort that is put into changing the
world does not go towards sustainability, but to consumption. We
don't have the right mind set to even look into all the stuff scientists are
talking about, much less bring them into being.
Assumption five is
that the civilization we live in will not allow science to become what
optimistic environmentalists hope for. Instead it will be kept abstract and
isolated from the real world. People are afraid of new things, or at least our way of
living makes these facts seem true. Nature is change and civilization is frozen
into place. Our mindsets will not change; our economic system will
not change, but perhaps worse of all our technology won't change. It
is the rebels, revolutions and critical thinkers that accomplish the
real stuff. No battle was won by abiding by the enemies laws and no
victory was claimed by someone without a mastered self. The people that are
trying to pursue these green technologies are too ingrained in civilization to
change it. This is also no coincidence; it is the nature of the world to
assimilate ideas and people that threaten the system. Every time a new
technology pops up the same thing happens, the designers are lacking in will
power and do the wrong thing, and then it goes through the market and becomes
every other planet raping device.
Assumption six is that
it is much better to destroy the things that damage the environment then
replace them with other things that are supposed to do the same job. Do you think that solar
energy is much better than oil generated energy? I sure do, but putting these
things into place is a different matter. Clean energy has been around for a
while and it still is not even proportionate to stuff like gas or hydro. It is
now a matter of time more than anything else. If we do not get this stuff up
and running soon there will not be any earth left to save. We have them as
possible future alternatives, but nothing more. We need to look at ways to
bring down these corrupt industries instead of corrupting the technologies by
putting them on the market and allowing the system to take care of the
rest.
Assumption seven is
that the technologies that already exist will not work because they have been
around for too long, there time has passed. So, we cannot wait for
another technology that does not exist. All the options that are at our disposal
cannot work. Not because they are broken or never worked, but simply because
they require corporation from the system, which has no intent on allowing any
change. After all, civilization tries to stay frozen into place. People have put
a lot of energy into these things, and I think the effort peaked a long time
ago. Meaning as a movement, we can no longer continually try to change this
system of CEO’s trying choosing our energy without consideration of the
earth. They control the playing field and in order to put the technologies into
place we must play their game. If, and when another thing comes up, we can
change the plan. However until then, we cannot rely on magical scientists
popping up and giving us something new. It is time to dismantle the polluting
and dirty energy sources.
Assumption eight is
that the tools required to put a sustainable culture into being with science
are ineffective and won't work. How do you think we will really change the way the
energy is abused? It will no doubt require a lot of effort, which is fine,
people, have already put a boat load of time into this. The problem is that
these people are not spending time truly fighting for the birds, sky and all
the heavenly riches of nature. What they are doing is asking for land, money
and even the right to use their technology. The reason for this is that there
is no other way to put these tools into place. You need money, land and laws to
have this stuff. All of which the government and corporations “control”. The
way we fight must be compatible with the cause. However, on issues involving
environmental science this is not the case.
Assumption nine is
that the stuff we have in mind for changing the world are not good enough and
are still harmful to the environment. All the alternatives are the lesser of two evils.
They still have problems which are mentioned here if
we want a world that can last forever we cannot use metal for our windmills,
minerals for our solar panels or plastic for our recycle bins. All these
technologies are still dependent on non-renewable resources. This means that we
could not use them to sustain a world population of seven billion. It is merely
an endless delay of the natural worlds fall. What we need is something that can
be made with nature, for nature. The things we have now have the intention of
fuelling the destructive culture that is destroying the planet. If we want a
technology that can meet the needs of the land base it would not be focused on
saving civilization, but on saving nature. Yet there is nothing like this and
as long as the world is in place this will stay the same.
Assumption ten is that
science in and of itself is to out of touch with nature to be in a position to
save it. The
entire concept of modern environmental science is flawed. No matter what we do
it is going to stay that way, unless we re-create it from scratch. The reason
for this is that science is a virtue, meaning that it acts a certain way
no matter what. It acts as humans do because it is nothing more than a shadow
of our perception. Something is only proven because we humans think there is
enough evidence for it to be so. This may not be a bad thing but it means our
perception controls what science does. At the present what we perceive is very
limited and controlled. This is because of all the brainwashing the modern
culture gives us. Unless we can change that people will find ways to make
science unclean and bad for nature. It truly is in no place to save nature
because it is created by civilization, which is destroying nature. If reform is
going to come from technology, we will first need to get rid of all the things
that limit our perception, including oil and gas, even if there is no present
alternative. After that, we can move on to what is next, not before.
With this in mind the
most important thing we can do to save the environment is end the world's
modern industrial workings. You might be surprised at how quickly the natural
world will come back. I am not calling for the end of environmental science but
simply a switch of focus. People may ask what will come after the end of oil. I
say that the end of civilization may arrive. This in itself is beneficial to
the environment. So with these thoughts in your head I leave you a very
important question. What are you going to do about it?
Good luck
~Me
